THE STATES’ IMPACT ON FEDERAL EDUCATION POLICY:

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON RESEARCH AND THE HISTORICAL RECORD

MARSHALL S. SMITHMAY 9. 2008

The Rise of State Standards-Standards-Based ReformsBased Reforms

OverviewOverview

• Short history of standards• Three kinds of standards• The role of standards in systemic reform• Clinton reforms: Supporting state standards-based

reforms (SSBR) — Goals 2000 and IASA• Bush 2 reforms: New directions, compliance orientation

for SSBR — NCLB• Effects of SSBR • Where now? Questions

Short HistoryShort History

• Content standards: “What children should know and be able to do”

• 1970s – 1980s: Used in other nations: Japan, Australia, Canadian provinces, France

• Early 1980s, U.S. national interest: “A Nation at Risk” NCTM standards — AP

• Strong state action and interest: NY regents, Kentucky, California, Texas, NGA, CSSO

• Federal • Reagan amendments to ESEA: included local performance accountability• Bush 1: Dept of Education, Humanities Endowment, NSF all sponsored

voluntary national standards: NCEST, America 2000, Dem alternative

Three Kinds of StandardsThree Kinds of Standards

• Content standards: “What students should know and be able to do.” Preferably based on intersections of theories of content/discipline, human development and pedagogy. Stimulate public dialog. Regularly update. We don’t know the RIGHT way – there are many good ways.

• Performance standards: Specification of how we know if student has mastered content. Don’t think cut-off scores. Think reading and writing an essay on Harry Potter, solving a two-variable math problem, taking a reasoned position on federalism, reading a NY Times editorial and arguing against its thesis. Validation important!

• Opportunity to Learn Standards: Resources (human, material and time) needed for students to have the opportunity to achieve to high performance standards.

Standards Enable State Systemic ReformStandards Enable State Systemic Reform

• What motivated state systemic reform?• Simple conception of standards with performance

accountability was not enough – the system need to be changed.

• Federal and many state policies incoherent – together a cacophony of discordance

• “Two” curricula – one for poor, other for well-to-do

• Organizational theory and other nations’ experiences suggested use of standards (goals) to help bring structure and coherence – through system reform .

Why state standards based reform rather than federal? Why state standards based reform rather than federal?

• Why States?– 10th Amendment– Fewer layers for policy to be butchered. Top down, one size fits all doesn’t work in

diverse settings. Knowledge base not strong enough to support one prescription. – Federal gov’t. fraught with ideology and special interests that distort policies:

one bad idea affects 50 states. – States vary , often more innovative—good state policies can lead to innovation,

support and high achievement for all; bad (ideological, uninformed) affect one. – Other nations’ ministries generally run by and policies developed by educators:

this more likely in states than at national level. – State and local governments provide roughly 93% of funding.

• Why not states?– Federal government traditionally more aggressive in supporting rights of minority

students and those with special needs. – Federal role in helping to equalize and through R&D: – Leave adaptive teaching/learning decisions to state/local governments.

What was the original intent of state What was the original intent of state standards-based reform?standards-based reform?

• State Content standards: guide curriculum• State and local Policy and governance alignment with standards: HR

(teacher training, licensure) curriculum, assessments, resources • Through restructured state and local governance, districts and schools

would have the resources, flexibility and responsibility to meet student needs (OTL)

• Standards Aligned assessments (performance standards) at only three grades to reduce tight coupling and allow creativity in curriculum and instruction

• Standards Aligned and fair accountability (OTL necessary for fairness): mixture performance, professional, reciprocal accountability

Clinton ReformsClinton Reforms

• By 1992 major support for standards-based reforms: Business, education groups. (AFT, CCSSO, NGA, others)

• G2000 (1994): Voluntary. To provide funds for states to create state standards-based reform systems. Resource, assessment, and accountability align with Content standards. (lost OTL)

• IASA (1994): Title I required states to have standards and aligned resources and assessments (SBR) for Title I students – must be the same as standards for all other students.

• Reauthorized ESEA titles support standards-based reforms.• Other legislation work within SBR: vocational education, special

education, etc.

Implementation of Clinton reformsImplementation of Clinton reforms

• 1994 reforms required massive efforts by states, some which generated considerable controversy.

• Challenge of creating content standards, aligned resources, aligned assessments for three grades, aligned accountability system substantial. Different states took different routes. Diversity powerful and potentially very useful. TX, NC, MA, CA, CN, VT

• Many states had to build coalitions, create state laws, fight battles over the idea of SBR, fight over nature and content of standards, contract for assessments, etc.

• Yet by 2001, reporting on data collected in 2000, six years later Ed Week found “the vast majority of states” had made substantial progress.

N C L BN C L B• In 2002 when NCLB signed into law many states almost

completely implemented IASA.• Considerable variation in SSBR in 2001 but: general professional

support of reforms, strong focus on alignment of resources, student work, innovation.

• Yet federal lawmakers frustrated: saw only small effects. Bi-partisan NCLB legislation changed focus/nature of reforms. – Retained shell of SSBR– Increased testing dramatically —2-3 fold. – Required stringent accountability with self-fulfilling failure structure and,

via Reading First and tool kit, non evidence based instructional requirements.

– Initiated vigorous compliance and rhetoric. Compliance seems to have created frustration and replaced innovation.

What have been the achievement consequences of What have been the achievement consequences of the reforms? Overall effects of SSBRthe reforms? Overall effects of SSBR

• Methodology: Use Longitudinal NAEP. Focus on sub-groups: Because of changes in relative sizes, population sub-groups give better estimates of effects of policies.

• Rates of gain should be measure of effect: comparison of rates prior to 1994 with rates after. • For Math: no effects. Similar rates of gain before and after 1994.

Rates substantial. • For reading: rates for 9- and 13-year-olds greater after 1994 than

before. Also gap closes more. SSBR associated with positive influence.

Longitudinal NAEP for 9-year-olds: ReadingLongitudinal NAEP for 9-year-olds: Reading

Groups 1975 1994 2004Gains +Rate

of Gains: 1975-1994

Gains + Rate of Gains:

1994-2004

Nation 210 211 219 +1 (0.05) +8 (1.0)

White 217 218 226 +1 (0.05) +8 (1.5)

Black 181 185 200 +4 (0.3) +15 (1.5)

Hispanic 183 186 205 +3 (0.2) +19 (1.9)

Longitudinal NAEP for 13-year-olds: ReadingLongitudinal NAEP for 13-year-olds: Reading

Groups 1975 1994 2004Gains +Rate

of Gains 1975-1994

Gains + Rate of Gains

1994-2004

Total 256 258 259 +2 (0.1) +1 (0.1)

White 262 265 266 +3 (0.2) +1 (0.1)

Black 226 234 244 +8 (0.4) +10 (1.0)

Hispanic 232 235 242 +3 (0.2) +7 (0.7)

Effects of SSBR before and after 2002Effects of SSBR before and after 2002

Were lawmakers on right track by increasing top down requirements and pressure in 2002 NCLB?

Use Main NAEP: Compare rates of gain for SSBR before and after 2002.

Math gain scores: similar rates of gains before and after 2002.

Reading gain scores different rates before and after 2002. For 4th and 8th graders rates greater before 2002: & gap closing greater.

State NAEP similar pattern: states vary considerably in gain rates. MA 8th grade math exceeds all European nations. CA very low.

4th Grade Main NAEP Reading Scale Scores comparing rates of gain over Clinton reform years with rates during NCLB years

Groups 1994 2002 2005 2007 2002-1994Gain (Rate)

2007-2002Gain (Rate)

White 222 227 228 230 5(0.6)

5(0.6)

Black 184 198 199 203 14(1.75)

5(1.0)

Hispanic 186 199 201 204 13(1.6)

5(1.0)

8th Grade Main NAEP Reading Scale Scores: Comparing rates of gain over Clinton reform years with rates during NCLB years

Groups 1994 2002 2005 2007 2002-1997Gain (Rate)

2007-2002Gain (Rate)

White 265 271 269 270 6(0.75

-1(-0.2)

Black 235 244 242 244 9(1.1)

0(0.0)

Hispanic 239 245 245 246 6(0.75)

1(0.2)

Where Now? QuestionsWhere Now? Questions• How can the federal government support greater equality of

results, support school improvement, help build capacity, and stimulate innovation without dictating policy?

• Suppose that the federal government stopped requiring SSBR including accountability. What would the states do?

• The world has changed dramatically since 1994—how should the federal role change? Is anyone talking about this? Technology, communication, increasing poverty.

• In the last two decades we have learned a lot about learning and what affects student achievement—how might the federal government help states use that information?